CALL YOUR SENATORS ON GUN BILL NOW!

[zanne]

Just about every state allows carrying a concealed gun, but some states are more lenient than others, giving unstable people, people with records, drug addicts and alcoholics the same right to carry a concealed gun. The senate is voting tomorrow on a bill by a whacko republican who wants every state to accept the standards of every state for carrying a concealed weapon. In other words, some wacko from a lenient state who drinks constantly and gets very angry when he does will be legally able to carry his concealed gun in YOUR state, too. Please read this. I know that all the gun nuts on DU will be screaming "Second amendment"! Don't listen to them; listen to your own common sense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/opinion/21tue2.html?_r=2&th&emc=th

PS MY brother got a call from the NRA this morning, urging him to call his senators to approve the bill. (He told them to go to hell).

[Pavulon]

1. Let them know you support it, and continue to enjoy a majority..

start attacking 2nd amendment and watch seats go away. The law allows reciprocity for the most STRINGENT standards, not the least.

[zanne]

3. You guys are always the first to show up...

Which militia do you belong to?

[NutmegYankee]

84. The unorganized Militia of the United States

as established by US Code. You?

[krispos42]

118. She's not in one

She's female, and only men can be in the unorganized militia and, presumebly, own guns.

[slackmaster]

133. Remind me again why we started allowing them to vote

:sarcasm:

[krispos42]

143. Because we're moving towards more equality, not less

Which is why I find the "you have to be in the National Guard to privately own a gun" inheirently inequal.

[slackmaster]

144. That's exactly how I feel about it, in case my sarcasm was unclear to anyone

More equality is better. More choice is better. More freedom is better.

This thread has degraded into a smoldering ruin.

[zanne]

167. So you're not only a gun nut, you're a sexist, too. Way to go. nt

[slackmaster]

178. No, I respond the same way to rude behavior no matter what the gender of the person who does it

:hi:

[NutmegYankee]

188. I wasn't trying to start a gender war.

Just wanted to point out the US Code. *sigh*

[joeybee12]

8. Good lord...repsonsibility and common sense mean nothing to you, do they? n/t

[AndyA]

15. Apparently, from reading the news, responsibility and common sense

mean nothing to more than a few legal gun holders.

And as long as that second amendment continues to be given precedence over the right to live, it will remain that way. :(

Not everyone should have a gun. Today's laws do not work to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. FAIL.

[joeybee12]

32. There is no constituitional right ot own a gun...the SCOTUS of the USA was wrong...

...any historical constitutional scholar worth a damn knows this...the SCOTUS has made mistakes before most notably in Hardwick whcih they overturned about 10 years after the ruling...and let's go back a bit to when they ruled black people were 2/3 a man...as long as we have 5 nutjobs making these rulings, they will keep getting it wrong.

[zanne]

36. I have a strong feeling the mood of the nation will change...

And that ruling will be looked at again and changed back. The people can't all be insane all the time. The NRA is responsible for all of it, but as soon as a group comes along with as much power, the tide will turn. Look for it within ten years.

[joeybee12]

130. Take capital punishment for example...views are changing that

it is cruel and unsual punishment...it hasn't changed completely, but some courst (although not SCOTUS) have ruled that it does constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

[Statistical]

145. It has been changing slowly over the last 30 years

Support for banning guns is at an all time low



Support for more gun control laws is at an all time low



Vast majority of Americans believe in an individual right protected by the 2nd.



Super majority of non-gun owners believe in an individual right as protected by the 2nd.

So yeah the mood is changing but not in the way you are hoping. You are on the regressive side of the issue.

[Thothmes]

In which case did the SCOTUS rule that black

people were 2/3 a man?

[zanne]

92. Good God.

Are you going to tell us next that slavery didn't exist? Look it up.

[Statistical]

110. Look up what? your delusions?

1) it wasn't 2/3rds it was 3/5ths as in THREE FIFTH COMPROMISE. Don't they teach history any more?

2) it wasn't the courts that made the compromise. The Supreme Court didn't EVEN EXIST YET. It was the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia that reached the compromise to get support from both Slave and non Slave states. Pretty easy to find seeing as it is a part of the Constitution (hint Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3).

3) it doesn't mention blacks at all but rather indicates freeman count as whole and non freeman 3/5ths (it included indentured servants).

4) it was never reversed by the courts it was rendered moot by the 13rd ammendment. The 13rd amendment didn't remove Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 but by making slavery impossible there wouldn't be any slaves to count via the 3/5 rule.

So generally it would be a good idea to know history before you quote it, and even worse demand someone look up something that only exists in your mind.

[Name removed]

114. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Thothmes]

120. Post 110 is accurate. He was merely responding to an idiot

Must agree with post 110. In the future you may want to take a minute or two before to fact check before you loose verbal flatulence trying to pass for facts.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[slackmaster]

140. Hey joeybee12, did you mean Bowers v. HARDWICK by any chance?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowers_v._Hardwick

[joeybee12]

149. Yup, not putting in that "d" totally destroys my argument...

....they directly overruled themselves..did you read that part?

[slackmaster]

150. It did fit better with one of your numerous deleted messages

:rofl:

[derby378]

87. By your logic, there's no right to blog, either

Why is it that you insist that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says while every other amendment does?

[zanne]

96. The SCOTUS chose to read the 2nd Amendment wrong.

The way it reads, the second amendment can be taken two ways. The SCOTUS is a conservative body and they chose to read it the way they want it to be.

[eqfan592]

154. No, it can't be taken 2 ways...

...not unless you try to warp the grammatical structure of the entire English language in order to fit your agenda. Then I guess it can mean two different things.

[zanne]

98. You mean like The Right to Free Speech?

Is that why Bush had those "First Amendement" corrals where protesters had to go so he couldn't hear them? Other amendments have limits. You guys want no limits on gun ownership. Every time a kid gets shot in a drive by or somebody goes nuts and shoots a bunch of innocent people, I'll think of you. How do you sleep at night?

[Pavulon]

99. really well.

criminal acts do not negate the constitution. At least the morons who banned booze actually changed the document. Of course they eventually realized how fucking stupid they were, and changed it back.

Feel free to go for that change. Limits are fine, I follow the law. People who do not follow the law are the problem.

[zanne]

113. I am working for a change in the gun laws.

But I have a feeling you wouldn't approve, Pavulon.

[michreject]

124. And you will fail in your attempt

You all the Republicans and half the Democrats against you.

[zanne]

165. Ummmmm.....The bill was DEFEATED!

I guess you're wrong, huh?

[Pavulon]

186. Impacts no one but those who follow the law

so all that was done was to fuck off law abiding people.

[slackmaster]

137. Please leave the Democratic Party so you don't drag us down with you

:hi:

[derby378]

100. Why bring up the free-speech cages when you know I opposed them, too?

Instead of trying to make us look like monsters, try a little honey instead of vinegar once in a while.

[zanne]

112. You mean, like the way you guys do with me? nt

[derby378]

125. You'd be surprised...

You know that new Philadelphia law that requires lost or stolen guns to be reported to the police? I'm for that. Why wouldn't a law-abiding gun owner alert law enforcement to theft of his or he firearms, as such poses a threat to public safety? I can't wrap my mind around why anyone would oppose it.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

128. You missed the part about "the right of the PEOPLE"

It was right there in your post. It's not "the right of the militia," because we're it. The only problem is that too many of us don't act like one, which needs to be dealt with.

[joeybee12]

136. The people have the right to have guns to form a militia...

...nothign about private ownership, individuals for their sick perverse pleasure.

[slackmaster]

141. I commend you on the effort you've put into reading it wrong

:rofl:

[joeybee12]

148. Glad you think you're knowing nothing is hilarious....

...go fondle your NRA manuals for a while.

[SteveM]

176. Are you a "fondling" father? You seem to be up on it (nt)

[SteveM]

175. Again, a complete mis-reading of academic opinion on 2A (nt)

[SteveM]

174. Admit it. You really have a culture war on, the natural result of prohibitionism (nt)

[SteveM]

173. Sorry. Completely wrong...

"...any historical constitutional scholar worth a damn knows this..."

If you read "any" work by historians, constitutional scholars, political scientists, etc., concerning the Second Amendment, you would realize that you are PRECISELY wrong. The great majority of these folks see the Second as protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms. Even Laurence Tribe, who popularized the "militia clause" some 40 years ago, had by 1999 come around "much to my surprise" (Tribe) to the view that 2A recognizes an individual right. In fact, the view that 2A recognizes an individual right is acknowledged by the much smaller anti-2A forces as "the standard model." As in, the way the great bulk of writing on the subject comes down on the subject.

BTW, if you want to go back to how black people were treated, try www.georgiacarry.org and do a local search for the Heller brief. A great summation of how blacks were systematically denied 2A rights. You will also find that the foundation of the 14th Amendment (1868), the great bulwark of the Civil Rights Movement over the last 50 years, was chiefly passed to protect all U.S. citizens from oppressive states, MOST ESPECIALLY WITH REGARDS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

You have gotten it completely backward, but there is ample opportunity to educate yourself.

[krispos42]

119. I'm confused by your 2nd sentence.

It sounds like it was inspired by the same people that were for the most recent iteration of the FISA act.

[damntexdem]

39. The NRA is one of the chief forces wrecking America.

This stupid bill needs to be stopped, as does other NRA mischief. If Americans cannot see through NRA bullshit, then America is doomed.

[Pavulon]

44. Who said NRA, I am not a member but think this is a great law

what exactly is the nra doing. I think you mean the DEA. majority of gun death is suicide, whole shit ton more is drug driven insanity.

[invader zim]

51. thanks for the heads up...

i will contact my senator and urge they support this bill. Not it will do me a whole lot of good living in maryland.

Zim

[zanne]

81. You're already giving yourself away, kid. nt

[quiller4]

2. I called my senators and urged them to support the bill. n/t

[backtoblue]

12. Why?

Does it make it easier for YOU to obtain a weapon that you otherwise would not be able to?

Do you support a murderer or rapist to be allowed by law to carry and conceal a weapon?

[DonP]

20. Murderers and rapist are already banned from owning any guns

You post is very confusing. Do you actually know what this is about?

People that have already passed the FBI background checks, been fingerprinted, been approved by their local chief law enforcement officer and jumped through any other hoops their state puts in place are already allowed to carry concealed in their own state and in a number of other states that already offer reciprocity.

All this does is make that reciprocity consistent across the board for any state that allows concealed carry.

The rules for buying a gun of any type are all still the same. You cannot buy a gun in another state without having it shipped to a class 001 FFL in your home state and meeting all the requirements and waiting period in your own state.

[backtoblue]

22. Any gun law should not be forced to be any LESS stringent.

That is my point. If my state does not allow certain individuals to obtain and carry/conceal firearms, I don't think we should be forced into allow them to.

[Pavulon]

27. It does not. The op-ed cited is just that op-ed

in reality the rules just standardize reciprocity. It would be wise to actually promote bill that is used by the law abiding citizens.

[Statistical]

111. Then outlaw conceal carry. No states that prohibits conceal carry can be forced to accept it.

Too easy.

BTW the following are persons limited from even possessing or purchasing a firearm much less carrying one. This is by federal law and no state can override it (Gun Control Act of 1968):

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
7. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996). (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)

Still think the law allows "murders and rapists" to carry guns? Come on.

[rwheeler31]

59. Hmmm check Vermont.

[rwheeler31]

60. No they are not, the rules differ by locality.

[Statistical]

74. Get a glue.

Localities have gun laws but ALL localities are subject to federal restricitons.

The following a prohibited persons for owning or purchasing a firearm in any locality:

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
7. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996). (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)

The NICS modernization act included mentally adjudicated persons to the list of prohibited persons.

Also individuals under 18 are prohibited from purchasing a firearm, and those under 21 are prohibited from purchasing a handgun from an FFL. Every single state prohibits CCW by those under 18 and all but 3 prohibit it by those under 21.

Back to the OH NOES. Sky is falling.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. That is not why I (or many of us) support this bill.

It allows those of who choose to defend ourselves to do so across the country, not just in our home state.
It just makes an already valid CHL permit more expansive throughout the US - disambiguating the confusing interstate patchwork that hampers people who choose to carry.
This bill affords people who exercise their rights MORE freedom. Not less. I see that as a positive change.

This bill will have NO EFFECT on the availability of guns - allowing murderers and rapists (who cannot even legally own weapons) to carry and conceal the weapon. It does not make it any easier for Concealed Carriers to obtain guns or permits. This bill does nothing for firearm availability - period. SUPPORT FOR THIS BILL IS NOT SUPPORT FOR MURDERERS AND RAPISTS

Here's a thought... "I wonder if armed murderers & rapists even care about laws prohibiting their ability to carry and conceal firearms."

[quiller4]

72. Spouse and I have Washington concealed carry permits and want them recognized

in other states, too. Why shouldn't they be recognized after we passed both state and federal background checks

[Dappleganger]

93. Same here.

[slackmaster]

134. Me too

If a driver's license or marriage license issued in one state is honored in all 50, so should a concealed weapons permit.

[rwheeler31]

4. The gun dealers are going too far just like the Gop did, no

one I have talked to is for this nonsense. I used to defend gun owners, not anymore, these guys have lost it.

[gorfle]

34. How have the lost it?

Seriously. My driver's license lets me drive a car across state lines. Imagine the insanity if you had to get a license in each state you wanted to drive in.

All this bill does is do the same thing for CCW permits. If you have a concealed carry permit it will be valid in all states that allow concealed carry.

[sellitman]

5. Gun owners have little common sense.

Fire away!

[Pavulon]

6. Nice. Attack on Common sense used in a broad brush post..(nt)

[joeybee12]

9. Not all that broad with your ridiculous comments here....stupid, stupid

stupid.

[Pavulon]

10. Really, which ones? All gun owners are stupid

that is brilliant. That bans never work. That is pretty well proven. Are you actually insulting me while supporting a comment that all gun owners are idiots. Really?

[joeybee12]

35. Bans never work...bullshit...stop reading your NRA literature and

stop just espousing propoganda from your NRA mailers and have an original thought...another broad assetion from you and you can't even realize it...absolutely friggin ridiculous.

[Pavulon]

41. How many calls for a oz?

maybe two. That is a great ban. Like I said in another post, the days of shuck and jive gun control is over. The only question is if those in power will address root cause or just piss that opportunity away.

Did you know hookers are banned, yep that is why no prostitution ever happens.

Not everyone who supports the constitution is an nra member.

[The Doctor.]

46. Want to curtail gun violence?

Education and prosperity.

That'll also reduce abortion, drug dependency, prostitution...

Wouldn't it be nice if we treated the cause rather than the symptoms?

[Pavulon]

47. Canada and other nations define that

root cause must be addressed. Many nations have similar firearms laws as the us and very different crime levels. Now we have power we can do that. Mental health care and drug law reform would make massive changes by themselves. I think everyone with common sense has come to the conclusion than gun control is an opt in structure. reasonable laws are great, but do not impact those who choose not to follow them.

Changing the factors that drive violence is key.

[CRF450]

49. AMEN brotha!! n/t

[iverglas]

187. could you name one, please?

Many nations have similar firearms laws as the us and very different crime levels.

Can you name a country where a handgun can be legally acquired with the ease, and secrecy, that apply in the US?

Thank you in advance.



reasonable laws are great, but do not impact those who choose not to follow them.

Yeah. A law requiring a licence to possess a firearm, and registration of firearms transfers, wouldn't affect those who didn't choose to follow them.

On the other hand, the idea of getting caught breaking them might just be an incentive for the "law-abiding gun owners" among us to do so, d'you think? Not to mention those straw purchaser / nominally "law-abiding gun owners".

And just think, if someone needed to show a licence in order to acquire a firearm legally, and their ownership of that firearm were recorded, maybe some non-law-abiding types might not get some guns.

But I'm sure guns would continue to drop like lawn darts from the sky into the hands of criminals.

[zanne]

82. That's a great idea, but in the meantime? nt

[Pavulon]

95. Bamboozle people with some flashy crap

that does nothing to fix a real problem? I got nothing, contribute to a fix or don't.

[The Doctor.]

157. Work on reducing poverty and improving education in the meantime.

Ta-Da!

[SteveM]

180. The "meantime" is now. Let's not waste it. We need guaranteed health care (nt)

[zanne]

94. You've been that way for as long as I've known you. nt

[SteveM]

179. The myth of the veneer liberal: they are more intelligent than others...

You have used these insults as if they carry weight of their own accord. What you are really doing is trying to grasp the moral "high" ground by claiming superior intelligence and, conversely, stupidity on the other side. You're arguments have been dashed repeatedly in these pages, but no matter: just call the "others" stupid. Now THAT is -- less than intelligent.

[CRF450]

42. Thats fucked up.

Living on my own, I have a concealed carry license, and a hand gun. I dont look for trouble nor do I want any, and I've never been in any kind of trouble with the law. But should my life be threatened by someone, I wont hesitate to put it to use. You call that "little" common sense? Your full of it pal... you may be the one lacking common sense, atleast on this issue.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

67. You must be a gun owner then...

to have made that statement.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NightWatcher]

7. dont do anything to confirm the rw'ers fears of "Gungrabbers", that would unite them again

and right now they are all disoriented and I'm loving it. If we give them the opportunity to rally together to get the "gun grabbers" they will.

[DonP]

13. Too late, that train left the station a few years back and ...

... it's not all rw'ers.

With 48 states now allowing concealed carry, the National Parks carry being passed, Chicago about to have it's complete gun ban rule unconstitutional just like DC, and NRA membership now pushing 5 million paid members I'd say gun owners and sport shooters were already pretty united.

Gun control is not only a proven losing political issue it's also a minority opinion by a long shot and getting smaller by the day.

But feel free to keep thinking it's the '90's and it's still mainstream.

When was the last time you sent a check to the GOP run Brady Gun Control group?

[NightWatcher]

16. as it stands now, the gun peeps who are stocking up and raising prices look foolish

as soon as the first "gun grabber" legislation gets mentioned, they are proven right and they pick up their yelling and gun hoarding.

Unless you want to organize the right and get them motivated, dont even say the word "gun"

[backtoblue]

18. Chicago is lifting its gun ban????

That is tragic.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5618852

[Pavulon]

21. Yep , even those most impacted by violence now want a real fix

not some look good feel good bullshit that really does nothing. Root cause is not going to be fixed with a gun ban. Your example is proof of that.

Factors impacting minority communities can be changed, but that will take real work. Not showmanship.

[backtoblue]

26. My example was proof that kids are being killed by gun violence.

Whatever the fix may be, I can't see a faster one than to get rid of the damned guns to begin with. Not allowing MORE.

[Pavulon]

29. Yep, and people die from heroin overdose, and pain killers

lets just ban them. Oh shit, heroin is banned, oxy is restricted sched 2? Really. Maybe PAYING FOR TREATMENT and rehab for the addicted rather than jailing people is a good start. You want to double ban heroin, triple dog ban it?

So maybe drug law reform, community assistance (not bullshit but long term community building), and access to mental health care (most gun death is suicide) is a bright place to start.

The days of the lazy selling "gun control" to the ignorant is long over. Those most impacted require real help.

The remaining question is are those in power to chicken shit to actually provide that help.

[TheWraith]

162. How do you propose to "get rid of the guns?"

They've already been completely banned. No exceptions. Do you think a second ban would do it? A third? Banning guns doesn't ban crime. Period. Ask Chicago, ask D.C., ask L.A., and ask Britain.

[SteveM]

181. You want to fix this by MORE prohibition -- which doesn't work...

Rev. Pfleger is not a very good source to quote. He's awfully brave in front of a hostile group. He doesn't seem to realize he is wearing the cloak of Jim Crow.

[DonP]

23. After 20 years the handgun ban has proven pretty useless here

The cross post you referenced is proof that it doesn't do a damn thing except cover Daley's ass politically.

The lawsuit to have the complete ban overturned is headed to SCOTUS with Amici briefs from 33 states, including Gerry Brown of California, supporting the ISRA and NRA's position that the ban is unconstitutional on its face.

Since SCOTUS, during verbal arguments in Heller vs. DC, asked the DC attorney, (re: reasonable regulation), "What's so reasonable about a complete ban?" The odds don't look good for Chicago's ban to stand up to scrutiny.

[zanne]

33. You're in serious denial, son.

Where did you get that crap? Some right-wing gun site? It sounds like you learn their sound bites word for word. I'm always amazed how some people have the nereve to call themselves Democrats.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[michreject]

55. Bravo

And every word is true.

[Name removed]

80. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

182. Democrats don't do the work for the GOP...

Any recitation of the facts against gun-control is meant by some kind of right-wing gobble-dee-gook from you. You must be told this: you don't care about progressive politics, the Democratic Party, or any kind of meaningful change for the good IF it interferes with your private war against guns and your desire to enact a prohibitionist scheme. You have shown this to be the case with each post: it's all about YOU and your needs and wants, not the community's.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

123. Paul Helmke is a republican numbnuts,

[backtoblue]

11. gun rights are a shady topic to deal with.

An 11 year old boy was shot and killed over the weekend in an accidental shooting in my area. I live in a "rural", hunting area and the mention of gun control makes people around here foam at the mouth.


People who don't use common sense (LIKE LOCKING UP THEIR DAMNED GUNS SO KIDS CAN'T GET THEM) should not have the right to own one.

[Pavulon]

14. In NC, the law says exactly that.

you are charged with improper secure (johnny takes a gun to school) you can not get a ccw, ever.

[backtoblue]

17. So, would you be for a federal law that made NC more lax on its gun laws?

I don't think that states with more stringent gun laws should be forced to abide by lesser control.

[Pavulon]

19. The law makes the highest standard reciprocal

yeah i would like a ccw to be usable in all 50 states. So i do not have to remember 50 different sets of rules to travel.

[zanne]

90. So you're paranoid EVERYWHERE you go?

It must be tough. Get help.

[Pavulon]

97. Not at bars, state property, etc. The law is specific..

You should pick a new cause. Gun control is about as useful as working to reinstate jim crow. Maybe you can see about fixing brown v board of education.

What I do is not your problem.

[SteveM]

183. My parents didn't lock guns away from us. They taught us to use them properly (nt)

[rwheeler31]

25. The states that lack people love this crap. Should we

federalize marriage laws, or import laws, or credit laws?

[Redneck Socialist]

28. Thanks, I will.

:evilgrin:

[RamboLiberal]

30. I emailed my senators and urged them to support it

Hell that was another thing I was mad at the Repukes for - they could've done this when they had the congress & presidency. Be ironic if it passes and is signed with the Democrats in charge.

My PA LCTF already allows me to carry in these states. Be nice to be able to carry in my neighboring state of Ohio without having to get a non-resident Utah or Florida permit.

[gorfle]

31. I will call right now and ask them to support the bill.

CCW permit holders have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than non-permit-carrying citizens.

Getting a CCW permit usually means a background check, fingerprinting, and paying a fee.

I'd be all for a unified national standard for CCW, along with reciprocity.

[rwheeler31]

40. It will be so great when we have to search everyone

at every school in town.

[Pavulon]

43. Funny, shit poor communities yep, Greenwich CT

not so much. Why is that? You think there is some root cause there with poverty, drug law, crime and violence?

You think a gun law will fix that disparity? The days of selling that stupid shit to those most impacted by crime are over.

[zanne]

89. We already do. So why not search for guns while we're searching for drugs? nt

[SteveM]

184. So, you support TWO prohibitionist schemes: guns and drugs (nt)

[gorfle]

126. What does this have to do with CCW?

What does CCW reciprocity have to do with carrying firearms in schools?

[zanne]

166. Ask rhwheeler. He brought it up, not me. nt

[L0oniX]

37. ...anti gun nut magnet

:popcorn:

[JitterbugPerfume]

38. this is sheer insanity and hypocracy

They are States rights advocated when it suits their fancy , but only if it suits them.

[The Doctor.]

45. No, no...

"Hypocrisy" is what the Republicans practice.

"Hypocracy" is the type of government we have now.

[JitterbugPerfume]

53. sorry about that

no spell check :nopity:

[The Doctor.]

66. Just being a PITA. That, and I love the opportunity to draw the comparison.

I iz a smartass like that.

:evilgrin:


.

[zanne]

83. You got that one right! nt

[virginia mountainman]

152. The US Constitution....

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

[ThomWV]

48. I strongly support this bill - it pisses me off that all states don't recognize my license.

[rwheeler31]

62. And you and you alone should be in charge.

I don't think so.

[kevinbgoode]

64. Everyone is a lawabiding citizen. . .

until they decide not to be one.

[N7255Q]

68. Does that include gay people who were born "criminal", according to some laws?

When 'sodomy' was illegal, I was a frequent criminal.

[kevinbgoode]

76. Sorry, I don't get the connection.

You can't be born criminal.

[quiller4]

73. I'm with you on that

[kenny blankenship]

52. I have an out: my Senators are Saxby Shameless and Johnny Isakson.

They probably hang out in the gungeon.

[michreject]

54. I called both of my Senators

Telling them to support this bill. Thanks for the heads up.

You rock.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jsamuel]

56. hmm. wonder if the same rule will be applied to gay marriages

[Pavulon]

57. Sounds reasonable to me..

there is no reason that should not happen.

[slackmaster]

142. It should be

State marriage licenses are honored by all states, at least for heterosexual marriages.

[krispos42]

147. With certain exceptions, I believe

The much-maligned Obama Justice Department did note that there are some conditions that states don't have to recognize other state's marriage licences, but I forget the specifics. I believe it involved not recognizing things like first cousins marrying. But that might have been the case of an immigrant couple of first cousins moving to the US.


I agree that marriage licences should be honored by all the states. If CCW licencees can pull this end-run-around stupid restrictive states, the GLBT community should too.

[Imajika]

58. The gun debate is over...

Gun control is a giant loser of an issue. Everyone knows it. Let it go.

[rwheeler31]

63. It is not over when kids get killed by stupidos.

No one wants guns in their house anymore.

[Pavulon]

65. You dont great..

i do. I will not infringe on your choice.

[Imajika]

75. Errrrr....okay...

Stupidos?

Seriously, Democrats finally got smart and stopped with gun ban and firearms restriction nonsense. Around 50 million of our fellow citizens voted for Bush....twice. If that isn't a good enough reason for people in the center and on the left to want free access to firearms I don't know what is.

Gun control is done, over, finished. Seriously, let it go.

[zanne]

115. You should never say "never", Imajika.

When Bush was first elected, all the political pundits were saying that the Democratic Party was dead. It only took eight years for us to come back to life. Everything can be changed and people change their minds about things all the time, including gun laws.

[zanne]

168. The bill went down in flames. Gun control is FAR FROM OVER. nt

[MicaelS]

69. I did, I told them to vote for it!

Thanks for the heads up. :evilgrin: :yourock: :applause:

[pipoman]

70. The irony of this sweaty palmed, franic,

screed is the release of the scathing report by that paragon of intellectual honesty, the Violence Policy Center, siting all of 51 shootings by concealed carry licensees over a 2 year period. 51 in 2 years out of the MILLIONS of concealed carry licensees nationwide who carry every day.

I emailed my reps and urged support for this overdue legislation.

[zanne]

88. Then consider yourself part of the problom.

I'm sure that as long as you can have as many guns as you want, you don't give a fig about anybody else.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[virginia mountainman]

71. Thanks for helping us spread the word!!

I am preparing letters to go out to my Democratic congressman, and Senators...whome I belive, that will be in favor of it!

What a feather in our cap!! Us Democrats passing many more progun laws than those vile Rethugs!

[Statistical]

77. You are aware that existing federal law sets the minimum standard for gun ownership.

It has since 1968.

Under the GCA, firearms possession by certain categories of individuals is prohibited.

1. Anyone who has been convicted in a federal court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
2. Anyone who has been convicted in a state court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 2 years, excluding crimes of imprisonment that are related to the regulation of business practices.
3. Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
4. Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
5. Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
6. Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa.
7. Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
8. Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.
9. Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
10. Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (added in 1996). (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)

Remember this is since 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 made all of the above prohibited persons for even owning or purchasing a firearm much less carrying one.

No state allows prohibited persons to carry a firearm.

The NICS modernization act included two new categories of prohibited persons:
1) mentally ill
2) those with pending charges for one of the prohibited classes.


OH NOES.

[zanne]

86. THIS BILL WOULD CHANGE ALL THAT. NT

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Statistical]

109. Only in your mind.

To "change all that" it would require repealing the 1968 Gun Control Act. There is NOTHING in the bill indicating that.

You are aware the full and exact text of any bill is available online.

[virginia mountainman]

117. Stop panicking, and read the legislation...

LOL you sound like Caroline McCarthy...

[Name removed]

132. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ohheckyeah]

78. I think the law needs to be standardized

for all gun possession. I don't have a concealed weapon permit as I don't feel a need for it. When I have been on long trips by myself where I cross state lines it's quite confusing as to what the laws are in each state for unconcealed guns in a vehicle. Sometimes adjoining states had completely different laws when carrying a gun in a vehicle....one state it might be legal to carry it in plain view, another you could carry a gun in your car in plain view as long as the cylinder was flipped out. Another state you couldn't legally carry a handgun in your vehicle at all. That's crazy.

[zanne]

91. No....that's not what's crazy. ahem. nt

[ohheckyeah]

107. Well, yes it is.

Neighboring states with different gun laws for carrying a gun in a vehicle. What is one supposed to do, throw the gun out when they get to a state that doesn't allow a gun in a vehicle? It's stupid. Have a standardized law.

[slackmaster]

139. There is already a federal law that protects people travelling through gun-hostile states

Basically it sets a minimum standard - If your firearm is unloaded, kept in a locked container, and you don't have both it and ammunition within arm's reach you can travel anywhere as long as the firearm is legal both at the start and end of your journey.

[X_Digger]

146. 1986 FOPA - Firearms Owners Protection Act..

It contains the "Safe passage" provision-

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

Also had some interesting text germane to other posters' assertions..

In the Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session (February 1982), a bipartisan subcommittee (consisting of 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats) of the United States Senate investigated the Second Amendment and reported its findings. The report stated:

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

[tabbycat31]

101. mine are both pretty anti-gun

and I think they are both fillibustering it

[Pavulon]

102. Sadly stupid, squandered opportunity.

to adopt a law that sets high standards for law abiding citizens. Missed chance to put the dems are anti gun crap to bed.

[tabbycat31]

121. that also depends on the state

I see from your profile you live in NC, which is probably a lot more gun-friendly than New Jersey.

[benEzra]

153. About 48 of the 50 states are more gun-friendly than NJ.

The states that are even close to being as anti-gun-owner as NJ, you can count on the fingers of one hand. The only state that definitely exceeds NJ on the anti-gun spectrum is California, IMO, though Massachusetts and possibly Hawaii are close. Even Illinois is nowhere near as hard on lawful gun owners as NJ, and that's saying a lot.

[proteus_lives]

105. I hope it passes.

And all the little anti-2nd fascists :cry: all the way home!

[Irreverend IX]

108. Yes, call your senators!

Tell them to support this bill!

[Fla_Democrat]

122. Done and Done

Told them to make sure they voted for it.

I know that all the gun nuts on DU will be screaming "Second amendment"! Don't listen to them; listen to your own common sense.

In this situation, they both said the same thing. Good to have my common sense confirmed. :hi:

[slackmaster]

131. BULLSHIT ALERT - No state allows drug addicts or alcoholics to legally carry guns

Federal law prohibits certain classes of people from even owning a gun.

As for "unstable" people, they are covered by federal law as well - Anyone who has been committed to a mental institution or adjudicated as mentally incompetent is barred from owning a gun.

No state allows people who are prohibited from owning a gun to have a license to carry one.

K&R because the thread is not going the way its originator had expected.

:kick:

[texastoast]

171. Like I said below

The states don't allow those CONVICTED of being a druggie. Alcoholics??? There are a lot of undiagnosed alcoholics. How do they know if they haven't had a DUI or beat their children or spouses, etc.?

Just sayin'.

[X_Digger]

135. Thanks for the reminder..

I contacted them to ask them to support this bill.

[slackmaster]

151. 14 deleted messages so far, and all but one or two were posted by anti-choice people

Wow.

[SteveM]

185. You don't think they are disruptive, do you? (nt)

[eqfan592]

155. I contacted my sen already...

..but in support of this bill. You and your brother should think to actually READ the bill in question before denouncing it.

[X_Digger]

156. Watching the vote on CSPAN now.. measure failed by 2 votes

more details to follow..

eta: 58 to 39, requires 60 so fails

[derby378]

158. Feingold and Webb voted AYE, Inoue and Stebenow voted NO

Anyone have a current roster?

[X_Digger]

160. Franken, Gillibrand - no

Seems to be about 5 to 3 yes

[slackmaster]

164. Maybe next time

Good try!

[zanne]

169. THANK GOD FOR THE SANE IN THE SENATE!

I'm very encouraged by this. This could be the tide turning against the NRA trying to control our lives. I'll keep working and arguing for sane gun control laws.

[jeepnstein]

159. The "Give a Mentally Unstable Drunk a Gun Act of 2009"?

Sounds catchy, doesn't it? Too bad nothing in your post has anything to do with anything but an appeal to emotion and fear.

When you have some facts come back and share them with the crowd.

[aikoaiko]

161. I support this legislation and will call my Senators to say so.

Thanks for reminding me. ;)

[AtheistCrusader]

163. Point me to a state that allows a Drug Addict a concealed weapons permit.

Search high and low, you'll not find a single one.

Nice hysteria though.

[texastoast]

170. You mean convicted drug addict, right?

I know a bunch of druggies who don't have a conviction. From very good families.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. If they want a CPL, they must commit perjury.

Every state asks on the application. Signed and sworn before me on xxxx..

No state allows anyone who so much as uses illegal drugs, to apply for a permit. The person seeking the permit must commit perjury to get around it.

No exceptions. So passing this bill would have made no change to this issue for any of the states that allow concealed carry.

[slackmaster]

177. They have to commit perjury to even buy a firearm

It's pretty hard to carry a concealed weapon when you don't own a weapon.